Combining related main motions with different voting requirements into a single vote

[laser158689]

We sometimes have two separate main motions, one for an appropriation and a second one authorizing a bond to pay for that appropriation.  A majority vote is required for the appropriation, but a majority of the membership for authorizing bonds.  We have in the past combined these motions and only had a single vote.

Is this appropriate?  Is it appropriate if we suspend the rules to do it?

Edited May 25, 2022 at 01:55 AM by laser158689

[Rob Elsman]

These two motions might be related, but they propose two different things.  It is quite possible for the first motion to be adopted and the second motion to be rejected.  Therefore, they should stand alone and be voted on separately.  Similarly, debate on the first motion must be germane to the question whether it is advisable to appropriate the money for whatever; and, debate on the second motion must be germane to the question whether it is advisable to authorize a bond.

[Atul Kapur]

Has it ever happened that the appropriation is approved but the bond is defeated? What would happen if that occurred?

 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/24/2022 at 8:53 PM, laser158689 said:

We sometimes have two separate main motions, one for an appropriation and a second one authorizing a bond to pay for that appropriation.  A majority vote is required for the appropriation, but a majority of the membership for authorizing bonds.  We have in the past combined these motions and only had a single vote.

Is this appropriate?  Is it appropriate if we suspend the rules to do it?

I take it that this is some sort of municipal body. As a result, I would first advise the council to seek advice on this matter from its clerks and/or attorneys. There may well be legal reasons why the assembly is required to vote on these items separately, but that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

As a parliamentary matter, it is generally possible to combine two motions into one. Depending on how closely related the subjects are, dividing such a motion into its component parts may require only the demand of a single member or may require a majority vote. See RONR (12th ed.) Section 27 for more information.

RONR does not directly address the question of what happens when a motion contains parts which require different voting thresholds, although I am inclined to think that this means the combined motion requires the highest voting threshold of any of its component parts. That is, in this case, the motion would require a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption.

As a practical matter, I do not think it would be wise to combine these motions unless there is widespread (or even unanimous) approval for both motions.

Edited May 25, 2022 at 12:22 PM by Josh Martin

[Phil D]

On 5/25/2022 at 8:21 AM, Josh Martin said:

As a parliamentary matter, it is generally possible to combine two motions into one. Depending on how closely related the subjects are, dividing such a motion into its component parts may require only the demand of a single member or may require a majority vote. See RONR (12th ed.) Section 27 for more information.

RONR does not directly address the question of what happens when a motion contains parts which require different voting thresholds, although I am inclined to think that this means the combined motion requires the highest voting threshold of any of its component parts. That is, in this case, the motion would require a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption.

Is there a mechanism to combine motions other than the motion to amend? Section 27 tells you how to split up a motion that contains separate questions, but I don't see a parliamentary mechanism for putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.

I might ask Laser to explain a bit more about the parliamentary situation. What has happened to the Appropriation Motion at the point where discussion has turned over to the Bond Motion? Because if you are following RONR, then the Appropriation Motion should be disposed of, at least temporarily (i.e. committed, postponed, or tabled), before you turn over to the Bond Motion. 

Your Assembly could accomplish something similar either by presenting the motions in combination in the first place, or by amending the Appropriation Motion to in essence incorporate the Bond Motion. I note that the Motion to Amend contemplates that an amendment could change the vote threshold required to prevail: "Requires a majority vote, regardless of the vote required to adopt the question to be amended. This is true even in cases where adoption of the amendment would result in changing the vote required to adopt the question being amended, as from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote or vice versa." (12:7, par. 7). The higher threshold would prevail. Note however that such an amendment would not be in order if both these motions are already pending in some form. 

I would join Dr. Kapur's question as well. If you've got some alternative form of meeting an authorized appropriation, then the Appropriation and the Bond Issue can stand as separate questions (though I think that one is "germane" to the other such that you could raise a motion dealing with both issues or amend the Appropriation motion to authorize the bond). However, if these are really integrally connected in the way that, say, "buying a $5 coffee" and "paying the cashier $5 for a coffee" are connected, then they probably shouldn't be separate questions in the first place. 

[laser158689]

I appreciate the thoughts.

Our process is that the Moderator announces a "proposed organization" for our meeting, items designated for a Consent Calendar, and a "Combined Calendar" to combine the two items "for voting purposes".  There is a motion to suspend the rules and combine the two items for voting purposes.  It passes, often by unanimous consent (the minority that considers the bonding independently is often less than 5% of the membership).  The first item is moved.  Committee reports and debate come up for the first item, although often include the second item, including any amendments.  Then reports & debate for the second item, including any amendments.  Vote on the "combined items".

Obviously, the vast majority of members don't have a problem with this, often myself included.  I was curious 1) to verify the voting requirement for the combined items, and 2) if the fact that there are separate voting requirements might be more significant in some unexpected way.

 

For Mr. Kapur - We occasionally have had some objections only to the bonding item during debate, when we've handled these types of items separately.  That has been a very tiny minority, though, perhaps reinforcing the practice of combining them.  Certainly, there has never been sufficient opposition to only the bonding to provide a real-world example.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/25/2022 at 7:59 AM, Phil D said:

Is there a mechanism to combine motions other than the motion to amend? Section 27 tells you how to split up a motion that contains separate questions, but I don't see a parliamentary mechanism for putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.

Generally this is accomplished by writing it as one motion in the first place. If the need to combine the motions was not realized until later, I agree there is no specific mechanism for it. As you suggest, Amend would be one tool. Suspend the Rules could also work.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/24/2022 at 9:53 PM, laser158689 said:

We sometimes have two separate main motions, one for an appropriation and a second one authorizing a bond to pay for that appropriation.  A majority vote is required for the appropriation, but a majority of the membership for authorizing bonds.  We have in the past combined these motions and only had a single vote.

I don't see how a motion to authorize a bond to pay for a specific appropriation can exist independently from a motion making the appropriation.

Obviously the adoption of the former can only occur after, or at the same time as, the adoption of the latter. 

It seems perfectly appropriate to me to offer both items as a single motion, without suspending the rules, and such a motion would not be divisible.

[laser158689]

Mr. Gerber - One might be fine with the appropriation, but object to a bond to finance it, especially if sufficient funds are available to finance it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/31/2022 at 4:22 PM, laser158689 said:

Mr. Gerber - One might be fine with the appropriation, but object to a bond to finance it, especially if sufficient funds are available to finance it.

Well, that explains why Mr. Elsman gave you the advice of considering each item separately. My point was that, if I understand the facts correctly, if the proposed bond is explicitly for the purpose of financing a specific appropriation, then a motion to issue the bond cannot be considered independently of the appropriation. Either the appropriation needs to have been approved before the bond is authorized, or the approval of both items needs to be done by a single motion. Such a motion would not be divisible, because if the appropriation were to be rejected, then the bond authorization would not be possible.

You've described the following procedure:

< There is a motion to suspend the rules and combine the two items for voting purposes.  It passes, often by unanimous consent (the minority that considers the bonding independently is often less than 5% of the membership).  The first item is moved.  Committee reports and debate come up for the first item, although often include the second item, including any amendments.  Then reports & debate for the second item, including any amendments.  Vote on the "combined items". >

I don't see this resembling anything described in RONR, and I think that a motion "to suspend the rules and combine the two items for voting purposes" does not sufficiently describe this procedure (which I admit I do not understand) as to make it a proper motion.

It seems to me that what the assembly really wants is to consider seriatim a single two-part motion -- one part to make the appropriation and the second part to finance it with a bond issue. Each part would be debated and amended in turn (see section 28 of RONR). Whoever thinks that part two is less advisable to adopt than part one could move and vote for an amendment to strike out part two, as stated in 27:9. Then, when the vote is finally taken on the main motion, it will already be known whether or not a bond is to be issued to finance the appropriation.